Question: Let us also say with regard to 'Mefake'ach ha'Gal' that he was alive when he began removing the stones?

Answer: Since when he discovered him, he was dead, we assume that he was dead at the outset ...

Source: Since all Tum'os are (retroactively) as one finds them.

Yerushalmi: Rebbi Yossi bar Bun in the name of Rebbi Yochanan in the Yerushalmi establishes it where Yisre'elim captured him, but if he was captured by Nochrim, one cannot Shecht on his behalf, even together with others, because "their mouths speak falsehood".

Conclusion: This is the opposite of our Sugya.

Clarification: In this point, even Rebbi Yehudah agrees, as we learned in the Mishnah 'So that they do not cause it to become Pasul'.

Alternative Answer: The Gemara could have answered that we need it, like we say in 'Keitzad Tzolin' (above Daf 79:) that 'One person cannot decide the issue'.

Implied Question: Initially, when the Tana said 'by herself', he did not ask, only now when the Gemara says 'Let us say "by themselves" ' (in the plural)?

Answer: This is because he understands that the Mishnah only forbids a group of women, when there are many women, who rely on one another, and who therefore do not take care to look after the Pesach, allowing it to become Pasul ...

Conclusion: But one may Shecht it for a single woman.

Implied Question: Rebbi Yossi does not learn a woman from "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach", from where Rebbi Yehudah learns Tefeilah'.

Answer: Because, were it not for "ha'Nefesh ha'Hi", he would have established "k'Chol Chukas ha'Pesach" by Tefeilah, like Rebbi Yehudah, whereas from "Ish" he would have precluded Chovah.

Conclusion: Consequently, "ha'Nefesh ha'Hi" reveals that we do not preclude a woman from "Ish".

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk, where do we find that a Katan is Chayav to perform Mitzvos?

Answer: We need it to teach us where a Katan became Bar-Mitzvah between Pesach Rishon and Pesach Sheini ...

Answer (cont.): Since we would otherwise have thought that he is Chayav to bring the Pesach Sheini. Therefore it teaches us that Pesach Sheini only complements Pesach Rishon.

Implied Question: In Perek Mi she'Hayah Tamei (Daf 93.) it is implied that we learn it from a different Pasuk?

Question: In Perek Arba Misos (Sanhedrin, Daf 54:) it is also difficult as to why we need "Ish" to preclude a Katan who has relations with a married woman, with his father's wife, with a male and with an animal?

Question: The Ri asks that at the beginning of the second Perek of Kidushin (Daf 42.) it implies that we learn Rebbi Yitzchak's Din from "Ish l'fi Ochlo"?

Answer: He answers that this is because there, we learn from "Ish Seh" Shelichus, which we cannot learn from "Ish l'fi Ochlo".

Answer (cont.): So we learn Rebbi Yitzchak's Din from "Ish l'fi Ochlo".

Conclusion: Whereas our Sugya, which learns Shelichus from Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, therefore establishes "Ish Seh" with regard to Rebbi Yitzchak, since it implies Zechiyah more than "Ish l'fi Ochlo".

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk, seeing as we Pasken that a Katan is not subject to Sh'lichus ...

Question (cont.): And in the first Perek of Bava Metzi'a (Daf 12.) it is evident that Zechiyah is because of Sh'lichus?

Suggestion Answer: And if you want to say that it is from here that we rule that a Katan is not subject to Sh'lichus?

Refutation: The question remains why one needs to preclude him from Zechiyah, seeing even the Metzi'os that he finds he only acquires because of Darkei Shalom ...

Source: As we say in 'ha'Nizakin' (Gitin, Daf 59.)?

Answer: That pertains specifically to a Metzi'ah, but a Matanah, where others are Makneh to him, is stronger than a Metzi'ah ...

Answer (cont.): As the Gemara concludes in 'Shenayim Ochzin' (Bava Metzi'a, Daf 12:).

Conclusion: And similarly, in Perek Hiskabel (Gitin, Daf 64:) the Gemara says 'If he throws away the pebbles and takes the nuts, he can be Zocheh for himself' - even with regard to a Kinyan d'Oraysa.

Question: Perhaps he holds like Rebbi Yehudah, and he learns two things from it, like we said earlier according to Rebbi Yehudah?

Question: The Gemara is saying that Geirim are exceptionally particular about Mitzvos, like the Gemara says in Chulin (Daf 4.) 'All Mitzvos that Geirim (See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim) and Kutim have seized on to, they are more meticulous even than a Yisrael.

Question (cont.): Whilst the Yerushalmi has the text, quoting Rebbi Ya'akov bar Yitzchak in the name of Rebbi Yossi that 'One may not make groups of Geirim, because, since they are sinners they are not particular, and will cause the Pesach to become Pasul?

Conclusion: And everywhere we see that Geirim are not fussy about Mitzvos like Yisre'elim are, and here we are saying that they are more fussy than them?